New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-04-13
A SPASM OF SENSE.

| There arc signs Of reaction in the Dominion
against the Governments fisheries policy.
Several influential journals in the Maritime
Provinces and Ontario are advocating an aban.
donmcnt of arbitrary measures and one of the
kecncst constitutional lawyers in Canada. Mr..
MacDougal, formerly Minister of Justice.
with the approval of Mr. Whitchcr.
ex-Commissioncr of Fisheries, has pro-
nounccd Sir John Macdonald's interpreta-
ton of the Treaty of 1918 illogical and un.
sound. He supports the American view that
there is nothing in that treaty to prohibit trade
in fish and other commodities, and that it is
lawful for fishing vessels to enter Canadian
ports with "touch and trade" licenses. He lin
its the first article exclusively to the subject of
fishing, its sole object being to prohibit the
taking drying and curing of fish within the
three mile limit. This is the American argu-
ment terscly expressed The convention was
never intended as a prohibition of deep sea
fishing or general commercial privileges. Mr..
MacDougal construcs it as it was written and
interpreted at the time il was negotiated. The
Canadian Government has made a fatal mis-
take in attempting to convert it into renun-
citation by the United States of dccp-sca fishing
and commercial rights.
The text of the treaty is so plain that the
Dominion Ministers will find it extremely diff
cult to answer the arragnment Of the cx-Nlin-
istcr CT Justice. Before the convention was
negotiated American and British fishermen
were partners in all the coast fisheries in Brit
isb North America. These partnership rights
were fully recognized in the Treaty of 1888
. l,,,t 81 L. &C 1910
first article refers explicitly to differences
which had arisen respecting the liberty "to
take, dry and cure fish on certain coasts hays,
harbors and creeks" dcsignatcs portions Of the
coast where such liberty shall continue 10 be
enjoyed, and prohibits its exercise on all por.
tons of the coast not included within the pre-
viously defined limits. The article refers sole
" to inshore fisheries and does not furnish any
warrant for interference with American rights
on the Banks. or in the Gulf. or in the open
sea. nor for n denial Of the commercial privi-
lcecs mutually conceded by the British and
United States Governments In 1890. These
broader rights and privileges are not affected
by single line in the convention, which re-
fcrrcd solely to inshorc fisheries.
Mr.. MacDougal abashcs his Canadian audi-
tors with the declaration that the proviso about
admitting American fishermen for shelter re-
pairs. wood water, sand for no other purpose
whatever" was inserted "from abundant eau
ton lest the general words Of the remuneration
should be construed to mean non-intercourse.
Til. Is the forced construction which the
dominion Government has placed upon the
proviso He contends that the last sentence
shows plainly that the treaty-n,akcrs did not
have in mind an inhibition Of dccp-sca fishing
or of commercial intercourse. The American
fishermen were to "bc under such restrictions
as may be necessary TO prevent their taking
drying or curing fish therein. or in any other
manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby
reserved to them" The proviso on which
Canada hangs its whole case refers exclusively
10 the privilege Of inshore fisheries on certain
coasts. The American Government had re
nounccd this privilege. but had retained all
other rights conferred by the older treaty
The various outragcs and Colonial and Imperial
statutes by which those rights have been I'M
warrantably intcrfcred with arc clearly and
Enthusiastically in violation Of the Treaty OF 1918